Daily Archives: January 21, 2013

First, I need to comment on a rumor that George Soros has been a key player in buying up gun manufacturers, with the intent of exercising “corporate gun control.”

Cerberus Capital Management, based in New York, owns a company called The Freedom Group. Freedom Group bought up Bushmaster Firearms, Remington Arms, and several other gun manufacturers.

So far, attempts to connect Soros to Cerberus or Freedom Group have fallen short. The NRA and factcheck.org state that Soros isn’t connected. If I find out otherwise, I will report it.

Right now, though, Freedom Group states it is getting out of the gun business. It is putting its stake up for sale.

That is highly significant. We are seeing disinvestment as an emerging strategy in the effort to reduce gun ownership. The plan is to convince more and more shareholders to walk away from their stake in gun and ammunition manufacturers, with the goal of starving these companies, destroying their stock-trading price on exchanges, and turning them into pariahs.

Disinvestment is a powerful approach. It applied huge pressure, for example, against apartheid, as private investors and funds disengaged themselves from any corporations doing business with South Africa.

Okay. On to the main subject of this article.

Online investigations of what really happened at Sandy Hook easily number in the thousands by now. Among other reporters, I have listed and described many contradictions and lies in the official scenario, and I’ve offered alternative explanations.

People have concluded:

no one was really killed in Sandy Hook, it was all faked;

the killings were real, but Adam Lanza wasn’t the shooter, he was the patsy;

Lanza was the killer, compelled by psychiatric drugs;

a Satanic group was behind the killings;

the federal government secretly contracted the killings in order to take guns away.

No matter what the conclusion, many of the investigations and analyses have turned up startling and useful information.

On YouTube, clips of Sandy Hook parents and teachers being interviewed reveal astonishing reactions and non-reactions that are light years away from what you would expect to see in the immediate wake of such a tragedy.

You can hear an important conversation between Jay Weidner and Jeff Rense on this subject. Some of the key interviews are referred to.

These are all people who were intimately involved and affected. Their reactions, non-reactions, strange behavior, inexplicable attitudes are stunning.

This is what I want to comment on.

First of all, you have to realize that only certain people get on television. That’s fact #1, and it’s a major key. Only certain people are interviewed.

Television is the filter through which we see.

Parents who are completely grief-stricken, who have fallen apart and are incoherent (which is what you would expect): not interviewed.

Parents who are very angry and outraged: not interviewed.

Parents who demand answers from a full investigation, who aren’t satisfied with the emerging media-controlled story line: not interviewed.

Then we have parents who are in a close-to catatonic state, or parents who refuse to be engaged by any media person, who feel any media contact is insane and invasive and massively insensitive: obviously not approached for an interview.

The same exclusionary “rules for appearing on television” can be applied to neighbors, teachers, other school personnel, and friends of families who had children at the Sandy Hook School.

We don’t see these people, because they aren’t on television. So making some vast generalization about all of Sandy Hook is sketchy at best.

Then, on top of that, television news people are creating a story line about what happened at the school and in the town, and they are finding people who will corroborate that plot line, or can be convinced by news producers to corroborate it. This further narrows the field of acceptable interviews.

The third important fact about how television shapes the event is provided by the interviewees who have never been on television before, but have watched thousands of television interviews. These people have a strong tendency to “act like people are supposed to act” when they are put on camera—which is to say, artificial.

That is generally what television does to the whole society. It presents artificial sequences of emotions and responses, phony from the ground up. It presents them on the news, in sitcoms, in dramas, in magazine shows, in cartoons, in ads, in sports programming.

Television creates a model of behavior that is androidal: flattened and cooked and bent and short-circuited and averaged out. This is what television gives us, and this is what many viewers accept. Not only accept, but IMITATE in their lives:

They speak like television, they act like television, they think like television, they admire what television admires. They learn how to behave from television. They learn what is appropriate from television.

In this sense, television is the Stepford Village. It invades a town during a tragedy, it sets up, it rolls out a story line that is independent from reality, and it cues selected people to be the robots who confirm that story line, no matter how grotesque the distortion.

Television invents its shoddy, mindless, false, lying, reduced, “normalized,” hyped version of life, and then people who watch television accept and imitate it.

“I know you’ve just lost your daughter, and I can’t imagine how you feel at this moment, but you see, when we interview you, we want to honor her life. This is your chance to let people all over the world know what and who she was. Her spirit, her interests, her hobbies, what her friends felt about her. You can show the world how alive she was and how happy she was, and you can remember that and you can even smile…”

And the mother of that daughter hesitates, pauses, thinks about what she really feels, and then decides the television producer is right and she’ll go along with it.

Nevertheless, in the interviews with those people (and others) whom I’ve mentioned above, something else is also happening. Something beyond the pale. Something that includes the power and force and influence of television, but something that goes past that.

Something inhuman. Something mechanical. As if, on some interior level, these people are programmed.

Programmed to do what?

To respond not as an individual, but as a “type of person.”

It’s as if these people have been manufactured, and the roles they’ve been outfitted with are grotesque cartoons.

As if they are machine-made cartoons. Something leaps out of them when they appear on television. They laugh, they smile, they act casual, they act “efficient” and stone-faced, they act placid and calm, they act polite, they act happy, they act as if they’ve been cast for a stage play that has nothing to do with the horrific events of the past hours and days in Sandy Hook.

They act as if they have no resource or experience that allows them to contact what they actually are. As if a wall has been built between what they are and how they are behaving.

In my opinion, this is a lot worse than if they had been (badly) trained at an actor’s school to intentionally provide material for an all-out hoax.

It’s a lot worse, because the manufactured front is their only reference point. They’re functioning robots. As such, it takes only minimal direction to move them to any chosen square on the media-controlled checkerboard.

“How do I need to behave to fit myself into the situation as an acceptable person?” This is the guiding question they ask themselves. The answer plugs in immediately. It is always going to be wrong, because every situation is, to some degree, alive, and the answer dictates dead behavior. Machine behavior.

We need to understand that these extraordinary and stunning and bizarre interviews from Sandy Hook are mirrored in other places. For example, what are we to say about thousands of soldiers who are duped into a war that had no sane reason to exist in the first place?

But there the soldiers are, on the battlefield. They are living and breathing and mouthing sentiments that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in which they have been placed.

The war has nothing to do with defense of the nation. It is cast in that false light. It is promoted as necessary. It is heralded as an opportunity to do service, to protect freedom, but those are gross lies.

Is a typical soldier in such a war going to look any less grotesque than one of those parents interviewed at Sandy Hook?

Here’s another situation. A news anchor is covering a major tragedy, like the murder of JFK or 9/11, and it dawns on him that there are gaping holes in the story, contradictions, lies. As the hours and the reports pile up, he becomes more sure that what actually took place was a conspiracy.

But he continues to sit at the news table and impart the official line. He keeps on going. In his case, he’s able to affect what everyone accepts as the “authoritative news voice,” but does that make his broadcasts any less grotesque, for those who can see, than the interviews at Sandy Hook?

I’m not saying that all the factors I’ve described in this article explain the actions of every person interviewed on television at Sandy Hook. In particular, two of the most egregious interviews, with Robbie Parker, father of a six-year-old girl who was killed in the school, and with H Wayne Carver, the Connecticut medical examiner, are mind-boggling.

First of all, you can confirm that Parker is a real person with a real background by searching Utah newspapers; e.g., The Deseret News. Parker is seen, in his now-famous interview, smiling broadly and chuckling and having a good time just prior to stepping in front of the microphone to make a public statement, at which point he huffs and puffs and tries to get into the character of a grieving father.

It’s hideous.

Carver, in response to press questions, not only gives absurd and completely inappropriate answers, he guffaws once or twice, as if he’s out of control.

In Carver’s case, I would say he’s covering up some gigantic medical lies about the case. He’s trying to dissemble and, underneath his shaky exterior, he’s very nervous and scared that something is going to jump out of the hopper and bite him hard. He’s at sea. He doesn’t know what to do. At moments, it looks as if he’s going to come apart at the seams.

In Robbie Parker’s case, the man is certainly acting when he tries to pass off his grief as real. But why and on what level? I can only guess and speculate and ask questions.

Was he a plant? For reasons unknown, was he inserted into the situation? Or was he programmed from an early age to believe implicitly in the religious notion that he and his family would always and forever be united, here and in the afterlife? Was that programming so deep that his attitude could never accept and countenance grief, even when his own child is killed?

But then I have to ask this. If by some miracle, we had been able to see interviews with ALL the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook, and with all the brothers and sisters; if we could see all the very human feelings and emotions that television takes away from us and hides, because their story line is geared to condition the public to the inhuman; if we could see, unvarnished and uncensored, everything the people of Sandy Hook felt and experienced; would we still think the whole town was demented and phony and nothing but a twisted act?

I don’t think so.

Whatever the truth is about the actual crimes and murders committed in that town, whatever the cover-ups, whatever the true operation that was mounted and carried out there, the role of television is central.

It is the prime programmer. It tells the false story. It obscures the truth. It hijacks the truth.

Television reduces the potential of life. It is the calculated average on display for the average viewer. It is the hyper-normal maniac at loose in society.

The people who own and run television for the masses are bringers of emotional disaster. They make a wasteland out of the hypnotic screen of reality.

Why are they successful?

They plug into a deep cynicism that underlies the robotic behavior and thought of millions of people.

This inner cynicism comes about because people already feel cut off from their own wide emotional range.

Television magnifies and exacerbates that disconnectedness.

People feel cut off from their own deeper currents because they are living lives and feeling emotions that go around and around in circles.

They see nowhere else to go. This sets the stage for dehumanization.

What’s missing in all this is the human faculty that can vault life up on to another level of brilliant success.

I’m talking about the creative faculty and force, the soul of imagination, from which people can invent realities that make television look like a discarded tissue in an old railroad station.

Because it comes down to this. If you don’t have the wherewithal to invent the realities you most deeply desire, someone else will do it for you. On their terms.

They will do it for you every time.

Some high priest, some dictator, generalissimo, president, elite news anchor, some numbers cruncher who sees this modern world as a playground in which to forward market research, will find the golden average, the emotional sweet spot on which the gobbling maggots can prey.

And when the individual creative force is tamped down, dampened, squeezed, and sat on, people will take what they can get.

I have no ax to grind here. The people who honestly conclude that Sandy Hook was one great hoax from the beginning and no one died; the people who conclude that Lanza was the patsy for professionals who did the killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the people who believe Lanza was the killer driven over the edge by psychiatric drugs: the people who believe the Sandy Hook killings were a secret-society operation or a black-ops horror designed to grab the guns of Americans; all these people will continue to explore their paths and they will unearth important information.

What I’m offering here is a perspective on how much of what we see is delivered to us through the twisted dehumanized lens of television, presented as if it is the whole picture and the whole story.

In Sandy Hook, what still remains off-camera, never seen, never mentioned, never named, never broadcast, never permitted to find the light of day? The answer is: whatever is spontaneously alive, whatever exceeds a simple series of machined reflexes.

The great goal of media and its controllers is mechanical reduction, so populations will accept whatever seems “more efficient,” more ordered, more systematic, more bureaucratic, more automatic, more predictable, more repetitive.

With that as the merciless foundation, the population will accept whatever comes down from the top as a command. The actual content of the command is unimportant.

The machine accepts instructions.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com